What Would Democrats Do If Abortion Was Bad For Womens Health?

New Hampshire used to have a significant number of female state Senators, including 11 Democrat women, all on the take from the abortion PAC’s abortion PAC, Emily’s list. Most of the rest of New Hampshire’s Democrat women suffer from a similar ailment, including Jeanne Shaheen, Carol Shea Porter, Anne McKluster and so on. So they all defend abortion from conception to birth because, they are told to say, it essential to a woman’s health. It is sometimes a woman’s reproductive health, but they have since changed it to just "women’s health". They also added ‘Freedom’ to "Reproductive," giving us the phrase reproductive freedom, which has nothing to do with reproducing and everything to do with not producing anything, something the observant among us will note is identical to their jobs programs and most, if not all, of the Democrats economic policies.

If you are a Democrat, destroying production is where it’s at.

This might explain these same un-aborted lumps of womb tissue toeing the Democrat party line on the environment. (And of course environmental rights means they take something away from people.) Each of these Democrat women, and damn near the entire Democrat partysupport things like RGGI, cap and trade, and have no problem telling people who assume they live in a relatively free society what energy to use, what light bulbs to buy, what car to drive, how far to drive it, what fuel is best, that their breath is poison, and so on. And they will insist that they are doing this for our own good, based on the slim chance that human activity might warm the earth a fraction, and on the even flimsier assumption that this small increase might not in fact be beneficial.

Recent revelations demonstrating wide spread fraud among un-aborted members of the pro-anthropogenic climate science community have not deterred the lefts "experts" and line-toers alike, from continuing to insist we waste billions of other peoples dollars to prevent something that is not happening. This may well have something to do with being on the receiving end of the "billions we are wasting" yet not a one of them thinks that a conflict of interest. (See also "public sector unions support democrats" for a similar unresolved conflict.)

Proof that the IPCC report on which the bulk of this fraud is substantiated is nothing more than a collection of biased assumptions and wild guesses, collated by un-aborted, Eurotrash-socialist politicians, to advance a specific, destructive, high-tax-grow-government agenda, have not deterred them from emulating this policy path.

And despite the mounting (actual) scientific evidence, that warming is natural and driven by factors other than un-aborted human activity, these same left-wing Democrats insist we should continue to take millions of dollars from hard working taxpayers every year so that they, their taxpayer-funded experts, and hordes of un-aborted-unaccountable bureaucrats, can finance policy to examine and correct the non-problem indefinitely.

Why? Because they claim to be convinced that there is some slim risk, despite many unknowns and contradictory research, that this might cause harm to someone, somewhere, someday.

But would they feel just as much of a commitment to save lives, specifically women’s lives, if we had more proof that abortions are detrimental to a woman’s health, and quite a bit more so than global warming? This abortion thing is all about women’s health after all and we are talking about women protecting women’s health, and if that is true then health should come before abortion, yes?

A recent study published by Great Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists (H/T Alveda King Blog) includes data collected from 22 studies, conducted over 14 years, involving over 887,000 women, of which at least 166,831 had abortions. The results? Eighty-one percent of women (81%) who have had abortions suffer an increased risk of severe mental health problems.

The report is quoted as stating that

"…post-abortive women are 37% more likely to suffer depression, 110% more likely to engage in higher alcohol use, and 155% more likely to engage in suicidal behavior. "

It’s not a guess about a few degrees in temperature over 100 years, but this sounds bad to me; not just a slim but a significant risk to the health and welfare of women who seek and obtain abortions. Mental illness tends to result in additional, long-lasting, physical health complications which could potentially strain their beloved socialist health care system. So abortion could, in a single payer taxpayer funded system, be a source of added expense as a matter of a policy preference. That doesn’t even surprise me. The Gay lifestyle has produced a manifold of challenging health outcomes, but they are generally ignored by the left in their pursuit of creating and expanding on another “victim class” to agitate for the lefts pursuit of political power. To suggest women’s health takes a back seat in their pursuit of aggressive abortion policy is no surprise at all.

So what about choosing life? The un-aborted on the left have long insisted that there are serious risks, to both physical and mental health, when a mother chooses to have the baby. But of course there isn’t really anything to report.

Postpartum depression, which can occur after birth, may affect as much as 5-25% of women, with far less serious side effects. This does not even come close to the risk reported for choosing abortion.

So there are actually no worse outcomes, unless the left just hates children, or would now like to argue that the future generations of "job-creating" welfare, food stamp, and unemployment recipients produced by lower class bunny-rabbits who no longer have abortions, would in fact not be good for the economy as they have recently insisted. Perhaps the danger that they might not grow up to vote Democrat is too much to risk, though statistically, if the abortion is meant to prevent children being forced into a life of poverty(for example), and people in poverty and state dependence have the sense to know who butters their taxpayer subsidized bread, ending abortion is a far less controversial way to increase democrat voter rolls. I guess they are just not that patient. Or perhaps it’s global warming, though that hardly excuses the century of state sponsored manipulation of the populace (since the early days of progressivism) nor the past 40 years of trying to turn women’s wombs into little concentration camps.

The left does not appear to like life much at all, only tolerating it if permitted to lord over it like little tyrants. And women? I’m not sure they like them much either.

Should it matter that young women, in particular, are susceptible to sexual abusebecause of the lefts preferred pro-sex-then-abortion policy, which until recently (In New Hampshire) allowed them–even perhaps encouraged them–to hide pregnancies resulting from abuse by sexual predators, by seeking abortions in secret?

Sure, sexual freedom can produce short term pleasure, but has not produced a lasting happiness of any kind. It does however increase the need for abortions and abortion providers, who return the favor by supporting pro-abortion democrats.

While teenage girls are less likely than their male counterparts to kill themsleves, if abortion increases the risk of suicide by as much as 155%, as the study suggests, as might say, sexual abuse, are these left wing policies and loose attitudes about sexuality putting young women’s health and lives at additional risk?

We know abortion already creates increased physical health risks, summarily ignored by the party of death. These are risks much greater than carrying to term, raising the child, or putting the baby up for adoption with any of the tens of thousands of capable couples and families who are on long waiting lists to care for them.

So if this really is just about women’s health, when does that actually come into consideration? And are the same Democrats who are willing to make policy based on the slim chance of catastrophic predictions of questionable climate science, serious enough about women’s health to change their stand on abortion given these risks?

Britain, at least, is considering changes to current law that would require abortion service providers to warn women of these significant risks. Unfortunately for New Hampshire’s Democrat women, Emily’s list funding requires them to support abortion from conception to birth, and frowns on legislating acts that might prevent a woman from bringing her pregnancy to a violent end. So what are they to do? Give up the funding in the name of women’s health, or give up the argument for "women’s health" as a justification for abortion PAC funding?

Remember, if we were talking about some small sliver of perceived risk to the climate, these same democrats would be rolling out press releases and making public statements demanding immediate action. They’d be looking for an opponent to blame, and someone to tax to pay for it. But we are talking about well known physical risks, and now significant psychological risks from abortion. I predict the left, all those New Hampshire democrats included, will assume the role of abortion risk deniers because I don’t think they care about the innocent life they are destroying inside the womb. They will say or do anything to hide the stark reality that if left alone, that life becomes one of us. So how could they possibly give a damn about any other life? The only meaning life seems to have for them is to do their bidding, and to fund their idea of government.

So what do democrats do when abortion is bad for women? The same thing they do with climate change nd just about everything else they think that is wrong. Hide the evidence, shout down opponents, smear, intimidate or discredit them.

And women’s health? For Democrats it does not appear to have one damn thing to do with it.

Share this:

Steve is a New Hampshire resident, blogger and activist. He is a husband, Dad, homeowner, info junkie and yes, a Taxpayer. He is a contributor at Watchdog.org, a member of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, and both a producer and co-host for GrokTALK! Please Note: My opinions are my own and not those of my Family, employers, or other contributors or commenters at GraniteGrok

Notice in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of Federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "Fair Use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.